Skip to main content

About your Search

20121224
20130101
Search Results 0 to 21 of about 22
strongly for the simpson-bowles framework for deficit reduction, and yet here we are no closer to a sensible decision on how to bring our $1.1 trillion budget deficit and our $16.1 trillion public debt under control. well, guess what? time's up. no more games, no more excuses, no more ceking the can down the road. we have to act and we have to act in a way that puts our fiscal house in order, reassures the financial markets and puts the people ahead of politics, and we have to deal with these tax increases and spending cuts in a humane and tolerable way. the calm act does all of that. look what happens to people in need if we go over the cliff and just do nothing. on new year's day, the lowest income tax rate will jump from 10% back to the clinton-era rate of 15%. that's a pretty big financial bite for people in west virginia and i know in ohio, too, sir. these are people that are struggling right now. instead of an overnight tax hike of 5%, the calm act smooths the transition by phasing in increases over three years. so instead of a 5% increase, the 10% bracket would only go t
was president and he faced similar issues in that we had a deficit that was getting out of control, a debt that was getting out of control. we needed to have growth, and so he put forward a plan, a budget plan that invested in our people, invested in the infrastructure, invested in education, and at the same time said we can find cuts in other areas and we can raise taxes on those who are doing very well. and what happened with that fair and balanced approach? what happened was the greatest prosperity in modern history. 23 million jobs, no more deficits, we got to a balanced budget and i remember saying to my husband my goodness, what's going to happen? there won't be any more u.s. government bonds because we're going to be out of the debt situation. we saw -- we saw it on the horizon when george w. bush became president, he decided to go back, backwards on rates across the board from the wealthiest to the middle to the poor, and he put two wars on a credit card and we are where we are where we are. and to add to this history, we all know that we're coming out of the worst recession since
to happen, but yesterday the deal was all the money is going to be spent. there was going to be no deficit reduction. unbelievable, unbelievable that all the money was going to be out the door as soon as it came in. as a matter of fact, before it came in, it was going to be spent. so, mr. president, i just want to say i know the president enjoys heckling and having pep rallies to try to get congress to act instead of sitting down and actually negotiating, but i hope that what's going to happen is we will end up following through on the reductions in spending that need to take place to replace this sequester. i will also add just for what it's worth the last time we extended unemployment insurance, we paid for it. the last time we did not cause the doc fix s.g.r. to go into place, we paid for it. and i hope that as this negotiation goes forth, we keep the same principles in place that we've had. this country has over $16 trillion in debt. sequester was put in place because we couldn't reach an agreement on reductions, but we knew they had to take place. and, mr. president, i hope we will co
but the debate over the deficit and the debt that is behind this? >> well, if you go back to 2001 and thereafter, the cost of the war was not included in the budget except the military and the defense budget. but the additional costs were not reflected in the budget. there were always supplementals. so they didn't show as a deficit. a vendor ackley to the debt. so while the budgets were reasonable in that period of time, the actual spending didn't show in the budget and people didn't pay as much attention to the debt as they do today because it kept mounting and so we borrowed to pay for the war and in fact we didn't ask people to make sacrifices financially. >> there is a difference between borrowing in the future, paying for work and paying back words, we are having to pay right now. people might have felt differently if they had felt the pinch right at that time. we would have asked different questions and were asked, and i think that is one of the reasons we got where we are. and it's where we are. >> on appropriations could you have been any more vocal about it to provide us getting into t
were paying down the deficit. we had three straight years or four of surpluses. c.b.o. said if we continued on that way, we would pay off the national debt by 2010. well, then george bush came into office, they looked at all the surpluses out there and said guess what? we've got to take some of that and give it back in tax cuts, and that's what they did. now that's what's ending tonight. that's what ends tonight, are those bush tax cuts. so we go back to the tax system that we had under bill clinton. i ask, what's so bad about that? it worked pretty darned well. the economy was going well. we were paying down the deficit. things were going well under bill clinton, under that tax system, and that's what we'll go back to tomorrow. what's so bad about that? well, what's happened is in the last ten years a lot of people have gotten very rich in this country. very rich. and now they want to protect their wealth. and that's what they want to do. they want to lock in this system on estate taxes and lower tax rates up to $450,000 or $500,000 or a million or whatever they want. they want t
a $6 billion surplus when it comes to exporting services, and a huge deficit when it comes to manufacturing. so the -- the finance done correctly which is figuring out how to mamp capital with good -- match capital with good ideas is important and having complex innovations in that is important for america's system. the problem is short termism, short term thinking, where finance comes come in and bankrupt companies for short term gain rather than thinking what's the viable, long term model of a long term rate of return? i think that has to do with corporate governance laws for incentives and structures that don't require -- that incentivize managers to make long term decisions rather than maximizing just the quarterly shareholders' profits. >> did you see the incentives that could be changed to emphasize smallness rather than bigness? >> absolutely, and i thinking the -- a lot of the department of commerce is programmed to help small and medium sized businesses. there is the best -- i took 50% of the jobs in manufacturing are small and medium sized companies, and small com
's over the budget and the debt ceiling and a deficit-reduction, also the reading and what happened in egypt and libya, and so i'm looking at how obama made the decisions he made and why he took the actions he took in that very perilous time politically but i also explained how this is all done in a way to set up the 2
that's driving this -- it's not a part of the spending budget that's driving the deficit and debt much that's being driven by the growth in entitlements, which are becoming particularly for a good reason, which is that the american people are living longer, therefore taking much more money out of programs like medicare than they put in, and i suppose for reasons that are not so good, which is the cost of health care continues to go up. so we proved ourselves incapable of dealing with this crisis as part of the normal process of compromise, and so we created this cliff which was intentionally made so harmful that our assumption was that we would not allow ourselves to go over the cliff. because it would be so hurtful. and, again, that's why i say no deal, in this case, is not better than a bad deal. no deal is the worst deal because it means we go over the cliff. why isual thi is all this happe? for a lot of reasons. but one is that there are groups within both great political parties who are defending the status quo, who don't want the situation as it exists now, which has created this
in the current discussions about how to curb the federal deficits and avoid having us fling ourselves over the so-called fiscal cliff in a couple of weeks. we are trying to sort out the pluses and minuses of this proposal, which we find is more complicated than one might imagine, and it's complicated further by the shifting landscape of medicare policy, federal health policy, in light of the affordable care act, and the state of health care system generally. hence, today's program, and we're going to take a close look at some of the pros and cons with the help of some of the country's leading medicare and retirement policy analysts. we are pleased to have as a partner in today's program, a kaiser family foundation, leader in health policy analysis and health journalism and communication. we're especially happy to have as a co-moderator today, tricia neuman, whose the senior vice president of the foundation and a director of its program on medicare policy. and i have a quick note for you. if you are watching live on c-span, or for that matter watching the webcast, which will be available beginning
. a plan that would simplify the tax code, shrink the deficit, protect the taxpayers, and grow the economy. but democrats consistently rejected those offers. the president chose instead to spend his time on the campaign trail. this was even after he got reelected. and congressional democrats sat on their hands. now republicans have bent over backwards. we stepped way, way out of our comfort zone. we wanted an agreement, but we had no takers. the phone never rang. and so now here we are five days from the new year, and we might finally start talking. democrats have had an entire year to put forward a balanced bipartisan proposal, and if they had something that fit the bill, i'm sure the majority leader would have been able to deliver the votes the president would have needed to pass it here in the senate. and we wouldn't be in this mess. but here we are once again at the end of the year staring at a crisis we should have dealt with literally months ago. make no mistake, the only reason democrats have been trying to deflect attention on to me and my colleagues over the past few weeks is that
of extremists in terms of our debt and deficit, that we're going to all of a sudden change that? and why are we changing that? especially since most of this money isn't going to be spent, isn't even going to be initialized for at least two years. i'd ask unanimous consent that that amendment be set aside and amendment 3370 be called up. the presiding officer: without objection. the clerk will report. the clerk: the senator from oklahoma, mr. coburn, for himself and mr. mccain, proposes an amendment numbered 3370, as modified. mr. coburn: i'd ask unanimous consent the amendment be considered as read. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. coburn: and per the request of senator schumer, i put a division in this amendment so we would have two votes on it separating out the fisheries because he thought that was important. i was glad to accommodate his needs. the main -- mr. schumer: will the gentleman yield? mr. coburn: i would be happy to. mr. schumer: i just want to thank him, he was gracious. there are two separate issues here, one of them i think most of us on this side would accept. the
intermediate deficit problem and implementation of the cost saving measures strengthened over time in the aca will deal with their long-term health care problem. so we are not that far away and we have other tremendous strengths in our country that would allow us to make the kind of investment to transform the economy, to do with the reality of stagnant wages and a sense of diminished opportunities. we have strengths. we can do it. we need the public to rain and behavior that's destructive and we need political leaders to act forcefully. given enough to bipartisan commissions and searched enough for bipartisan consensus. for sensible hard all politics along these lines. >> norm, i particularly cutie take the money question. a couple political had a great shared that showed that party polarization in congress was directly correlated with increasing concentrations of wealth from increasing equality went together artisan polarization. and the money question you can handle so many different ways. i'm really concerned about it posed citizens united system with a federal election commission that's
support it and its effort as everybody knows on the deficit reduction. i'm not sure that anybody really listened, at least they put in the effort. that's apolitical, by the way. so in addition, connie noted it was no surprise to her at the time that based on senator simpson's record in the senate and his bipartisanship work, that he would be chasing to be a cochair of the commission. lastly, i just want to say as we understand, mr. hardy had full access to senator simpson's records, diaries, finance, full access. i will say the senator did mention he's been married 57 years, so anybody that gives full access after 57 years, i think that's pretty impressive. but connie just really wanted to welcome everybody and say we are thrilled to be sponsoring this. [applause] >> nowcome i had the pleasure of introducing what i call the bravest man in the world, dawn hardy, author of the book. i don't you could possibly put all this in one book and decide what to leave in and what to take out at a 70s had senator simpson on msnbc cometh and then ann fox, you change the conversation about politics, c
after that. the tax cut deal, big fights over the budget and the debt ceiling and deficit reduction and also the bin laden grade and reagan but happened in egypt and libya. so i'm looking at how obama made the decisions he made and why he took the actions he took in that very perilous time politically would also explain how this is all done in a way to set up the 2012 campaign that we just went through. he had a theory indy to do big hit in 2010, yet the theory that he could make the 2012 race a choice not just between him and mitt romney but a choice between different ideologies and different approaches to government and values. everything he did in that timeframe he kept trying to tether to this big idea. when i wrote the book of course we didn't know how things were going to end up on november 6, 2012. i looked at how he developed his governing strategy and electoral strategy and it really dominated. this is the back story to what happened with this presidential campaign. >> david corn, showdown is his most recent book and we are here at the national press club.
cut deal, the big fights over the budget and the debt ceiling and deficit reduction, also the bin laden raid and what happened in egypt and libya. and so i'm looking at how obama made the decisions he made and took, and why he took the actions he took in that very perilous time politically, but also explain how this is all done in a way to set up the 2012 campaign that we just went through. he had a theoryf
code, shrink the deficit, protect the taxpayers and grow the economy. but democrats consistently rejected those offers. the president chose instead to spend his time on the campaign trail. reelected. and congressional democrats sat on theirel hands. now republicans have bent over backwards. we stepped way, way out of our comfort zone. we wanted an agreement. w but we had no takers. but the phone never rang, and so now here we are five days from the new year, and we might finally start talking. democrats have had an entire year to put forward a balance withed, bipartisan proposal, and if they had something to fit the bilker i'm sure the majority maj leader would have been able toe deliver the votes the president would haveld needed to pass it here in the senate. and we wouldn't beth in this met but here we are, once again, at the end of the year staring at a crisis we shouldri have dealt wt literally months ago. make no mistake, the only reason democrats have been trying to deflect attention onto me and me colleagues over the past fewt weeks is that they don't have plan of their o
is not the big agreement that will fully address our debt and deficit. an agreement that we hoped to be able to put together, an agreement that i support, one that includes pro-growth tax reform, bipartisan entitlement reform and finding savings in the federal budget. clearly, these items all need to be addressed, and they need to be addressed on the order of $4 trillion. to really get our deficit and our debt under control. that's the type of deal that i favor, and it's the kind of deal that we have got to get to, but if we can't do it all at once, let's do it in pieces. as the old saying goes, even the longest journey begins with a single step. well, if the first step is this tax deal, let's get going. to break the logjam, let's start with this piece, a tax deal that will ensure that taxes are not increased for middle-class americans. that is something we can and we must do. does it involve compromise? yes, it does, of course. for example, i think we should extend the current tax rates for all taxpayers. real revenue comes from economic growth, not higher taxes. and by closing loopholes an
, by the way, i would support, but we're going to use those revenues, instead of reducing the deficit like the president campaigned on, what he wants to do is use those revenues to supplant spending reductions we've already agreed to. so you're not reducing the deficit. you're using new revenues, this revenue that's been campaigned on now for a year is being used not to reduce deficits but to keep spending cuts that have already been agreed to from happening. now, i don't know. i don't think there are many people on either side of the aisle that would think that is a very good idea. and so now what the president is doing is holding hostage -- holding hostage -- this agreement on taxes for all americans, he's holding that hostage to sort of pay for these -- to keep from doing the spending reductions that we've already agreed to. i don't know if most american americans -- i know they listen to us. i don't know if they quite yet understand what's happening. but i hope that's the case. mr. president, i'm going to just be -- say a couple more things. i -- i listened to the president yesterday o
that well before now. we should do it for many reasons. one, we need it. we have a deficit that's not controllable. we've got to bring our deficit into better control. that means we need to reduce spending and we need the revenues in order to be able to give the right blueprint for america's future and growth. we also need to get a broader package done because of predictability. the private sector needs to know what the rules are. they need to know what the tax code is going to look like. they need to know what the spending programs are going to look like. they need to have confidence that we have our budget under better control. we should have gotten that done. i've spoken several times on the floor about we should have adopted the simpson-bowles framework. to me, that was a bipartisan balanced approach for how we could have gotten out of our fiscal problems. we're not going to be able to get that done in the next two days before we adjourn on january 2. but we need to recognize that we need to do that. now, mr. president, i've heard a lot of my colleagues come to the floor. i'
billion at a time when we are right now, people are sitting in rooms trying to decide how to get deficit reduction. and we pass something that saves $24 billion in a fiscally responsible way, cutting programs. we cut 100 different programs and authorizations. we went through every single page of the farm bill, which is what we ought to be doing in every part of government to be responsible, to make the tough choices, to set good priorities. we did that. and now at the last minute none of that matters? they're trying to stick in an extension that only extends part of the farm programs and keep 100% of the direct subsidies going. madam president, that's amazing to me. i have to say that is absolutely amazing to me. and i want to hear somebody justify that on the floor. now we're going to hear all kinds of things. well, the extension involves possibly a budget point of order. this whole bill coming to the floor is going to have multiple points of order that we're going to have to waive. this is not about procedure or budget points of order. it's about whether or not we mean it when we say w
, you get $4 gas. on the other hand you get food rising. why do prices go up? we run a deficit giving you free stuff and then we print money to pay for it and that steals value from what you have. it's not that gas is more precious. gas is rising because the value of the dollar is shrinking. food is rising because the value of your dollar is shrinking. big government is not your friend. deficits are not your friend. we hang in the balance up here, and nobody is serious about it. what's the one thing that's been taken off the table? spending. we will not cut any spending. so we're looking for a deal that will raise taxes, which everybody seems to equate with drowning, except we're only going to make a few people drown and they're rich anyway. but i think drowning is a policy. drowning, even if it's selective drowning. being in favor of selective drowning is not a good policy. so what i've asked and what i ask people is let your representatives now. let your senators know that you'd rather have some kind of serious fix to the problem rather than kicking the can down the road. you'd rath
. but since everyone understands if you are serious about the deficits and the debt you don't begin our program they've and imagine how you are going to sort of put that together in the end. and so, i think that is a sort of fundamental difference. democrats are protective, and therefore their political incentives are to play the same hardball with permanent campaign hardball, they are not prepared to put at risk the full faith and credit of the united states. they are not prepared to shut the government down. they just won't do that because they believe the government plays an important role. conservatives, real conservatives want the government that they have, and not a bit more that they need, but they are not wild and crazy about just dumping on that. and i think we have -- it is almost a radical perspective, not a conservative perspective. again, it is one that is much more protective of the government, and i think the difference is real. >> i want to threw out a theory we may not want to go after the hash tag triet 1 feet. it's all bill clinton's be fivefold, and starting in the 1
Search Results 0 to 21 of about 22